situation of impunity in this case. Moreover, when it finally provided information, this was limited to general information on officers and command posts that the San Benito Criminal Court itself considered irrelevant. This also concurs with the opinion provided by expert witness Lapsley Doyle, who indicated that, in her 30 years of professional experiences as an archivist, document expert, Latin America specialist and human rights researcher, the State of Guatemala “has never permitted a broad and regulated access to the archives of its armed forces to either the victims of gross human rights violations or their family members, for historical clarification or to ensure justice and accountability.”194 112. Furthermore, it should be added that the State failed to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety of the participants in the proceedings: the prosecutors, anthropologists, and even victims who were parties to the proceedings received threats. 195 In this regard, the Court recalls that, to ensure due process, the State must facilitate all necessary measures to protect the agents of justice, investigators, witnesses, and next of kin of the victims from harassment and threats that are designed to interfere with the proceedings, avoid the clarification of the facts, and conceal those responsible. Otherwise, this would have a threatening and intimidating effect on investigators and potential witnesses, with a serious impact on the effectiveness of the investigation. In addition, such threats and intimidation cannot be considered in isolation, but must be taken into account in the context of interference with the investigation of the case, because they become just one more means of perpetuating impunity or preventing the truth of what happened from being known.196 b.3. Reasonable time 113. Regarding the general promptness of the proceedings, this Court has indicated that the “reasonable time” to which Article 8(1) of the Convention refers should be assessed in relation to the total duration of the proceedings that are held until the final judgment is handed down. The right of access to justice signifies that the dispute must be decided within a reasonable time, because a prolonged delay may even constitute, in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees.197 The Court has usually considered the following elements to determine whether the time is reasonable: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (d) the general effects on the legal situation of the person concerned. In this case, more than 39 years have passed since the massacre without any of the investigations examined in this chapter going beyond the investigation stage; therefore, the standards for reasonableness have been breached. This means that the case remains in total impunity and, consequently, the Court finds it evident that the investigation was not conducted within a reasonable time. Cf. Expert opinion of Katharine Temple Lapsley Doyle, provided by affidavit on February 10, 2021, p. 3 (evidence file, folio 23978). 194 Carlos Federico Reyes, member of the FAFG was allegedly threatened on two occasions, and the prosecutors of the Unit for Special Cases and Human Rights Violations reported that they had been followed and under surveillance by unknown individuals. Cf. Notarized statement of César Armando Palencia Muralles of July 9, 2003 (evidence file, folio 7). In addition, as emphasized during the hearing before the Court, family members were threatened when they inquired about what had happened to their loved ones. According to Maritza López, when her father when to inquire about her brother, one of the lieutenants told him that he “should stop looking because, if not, he too would disappear.” Cf. Statement of Maritza López during the public hearing held on February 17 and 18, 2021, during the Court’s 139th regular session. 195 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 145, and Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, para. 224. 196 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 140. 197 36